|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Archos article.|
|Text from this version of Archos was copied or moved into Discontinued Archos products with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
- 1 Missing information about Arnova
- 2 Poor article
- 3 Seperating Article
- 4 ZVUE
- 5 Old Cleanup Archive
- 6 product info is written like an advertisement
- 7 Editing
- 8 NPOV
- 9 Awards
- 10 Product photos
- 11 GPL violation/code release
- 12 ArcFlash
- 13 New Archos
- 14 Update "upcoming Products" Section
- 15 Archos 101: 800 Mhz or 1Ghz processor
- 16 Entry seems to be a list of products
- 17 No Market
Missing information about Arnova
One important fact is still missing: Arnova is already independant from Archos businesswise. Still using patents and designs, but Archos Technology Hong Kong pays "royalty fees" etc. -> pls update information about Arnova — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, it is now May 2010 and no sign of the authors taking on board the many good suggestions on this page. I decided I'd go check consumer opinions on Amazon.com. The difference in tone is predictable but nonetheless startling. This article requires serious pruning. There must be an article about a similar size company that could serve as a template. Peut-être que je le ferai moi-même si les auteurs ne se manifestent pas rapidement. A bon entendeur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
|WikiProject France||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- What further information needs to be here?
- Who do we have onboard that can read French to help out with interpreting corporate history?
- Suggestions where we can find more history on Archos?
- How can the information we have be further augmented?
- How can the information we have be better formatted?
This one article seems to be getting cluttered, and there is still more information that can be added especially about the newer 04 Series, and not to mention the upcoming 05 Series and ArchosTV Plus
- I've split some of the later series, but the new articles could use a good bit of cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMV942 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the passage and two external links for the ZVUE here really necessary? Is it not advertising?
- UPDATE - I have now removed this Newmhost 09:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Old Cleanup Archive
- Archos needs a lot of serious editing. Bad grammar, confusing sentence fragments, and little if any information on the company (the article focuses more on the products vice the company itself). --Mitsukai 05:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've done some formatting and revision to help with the points of confusion; expansion points are outlined on the Talk page here so feel free to point out a few ideas. --Orethrius van Degaurde 05:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
product info is written like an advertisement
hopefully the edits currently going on will address this :) --Frantik 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, i'd say it has just gotten even more like an advertisement since the edits have taken place. --Frantik 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
this page is a very blatant advertisement for archos... it needs to be redone. "no your eyes are not decieving you!" please... spare me. --posted by User:220.127.116.11
- I just added a (NPOV) tag to the page --Frantik 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I guess it would be best to revert to a version from 2 January 2006. Sorry about all the work Nukey did, but it's really much more like an advertisment than anything else. - Pableu 10:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe some of the older machines are historically significant and one can make the case that it's not an advertisement if the item isn't currently being marketed. But stuff about models in current production should be trimmed back radically. Maybe it could be moved to Wikicities which would make putting in more kinds of content (like subjective opinions) permissible. Phr 15:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in the process of reworking the Archos#Pocket_Media_Assistant PMA section. Added some links to openPMA the alternative open source firmware that fixes many bugs that never got looked at after Archos abandoned firmware development. Added a CC-by-sa licensed picture. Reworking the feature list to sound less advertising and simply list the features. Being one of the main developers of openPMA I may be a bit biased though. ;-) --ThomasBRuecker 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
While I know Wikipedia is one of the best online fact sites here, I decided to add extras to this, by adding pictures and more descriptive terms for the products.
This was not advertising, it was merely keeping the article friendly yet informative. Yes I may well agree that "Your eyes are not deceiving you" sentence was a little over the top, This was purely to give the reader a more friendlier, positive approach.
I know that there should be no emotion but this was purely to give easier digestibility to the reader.
With regard to the (R) signs, as the company names are registered trademarked, this is a legal requirement to show this. This is in no way a form of advertising, it is merely a legal need.
As you are not happy with the article, I have reverted it back to it's original state from the 3rd of January 2006.
Thank you for your input anyway,
- I actually made some significant edits yesterday in an attempt to remove most of the more blatant advertisement language while keeping the information... may i suggest we revert to  or 
- cheers --Frantik 07:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well you are one of the admins (I think) so that's totally up to you.
all it will require afterwards is a little layout cleanup but I think I'd be better off leaving it alone :]
- I'm not a wikipedia admin lol.. if nobody objects i'll revert it to ome of the ones i suggested in a few days :)
- --Frantik 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder who is make the Archos wiki page an advertisement? I dunno, may be Archos. I am partly of the Opinion that we should trim the article, or just add all the negatives about archos. Like their poor customer server. I guess that really would not be in the wiki spirit, but I hate it when people abuse Wikipedia.
- I added some information with regrard to Archos 7 tablet battery life and it was promptly deleted. What is someone upset that maybe an Archos tablet has longer battery life than an Ipad. Ive made numerous edits this page with useful customer information that is relevant. Yes a majority of the time info from Archos is true however sometimes this can differ on an individual basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dholes (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to make this article as NPOv as possible, but it still may be a bit biased. --Frantik 20:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I found the Gmini 400 portion of the article to be written like an advert so I made some edits to it. -- Aharon 3:06, 7, September 2006 (CST)
I think the article is still quite biased and contains little information that could not simply be found on Archos's website. As someone who has owned the AV380, AV480 and currently, the AV5100, there seem to be very few criticisms of these device, such as the difficulty in using these devices with an Apple Mac (they don't disconnect cleanly), the inability of the widescreen models (AV500, AV700 etc.) to record anamorphic widescreen broadcasts and then play them back in the correct aspect and the whole dubious nature of copyright infringement when recording television broadcasts or obtaining DivX/XviD movies from the Internet, Newsgroups etc.. M0thr4 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
How about remove all these references to awards? I just think they're silly. -- Frap 02:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I have now removed all refernces to awards, it was a huge change, please verify it so that it is okay. Archos article should be about the company Archos. Does it really need in-depth information about every product its ever made? -- Frap 17:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the iPod article you will see the same there. :)
- I dont see any references to "award" on the iPod article. -- Frap
I was refering to the large list of players on the iPod wiki, nearly all their products are featured on there too. I was thinking about snipping out the individual products out of the atricle and turning them into stubs - that may be an idea.. -Nukey
- Product list is pretty okay, since it can contain useful information about the products. But awards are just boasting. And makes extra silly when it is like "First MP3 player in world with 20 gb disk to only weigh 130 gram and be manufactured in malayasia". :D -- Frap 13:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup I actually agree on that now, it was taken straight from their website but I see exactly where you are coming from now :) -- Nukey
- Copying text verbatim from their website is copyright infringement. It's actually more useful to create your own text, with references to original research. Every product could therefore have at least a few lines that summarise what most reviews said about them, with references as footnotes and if there are criticisms, then some important ones must also be brought forward. Otherwise some of the product text would indeed read like an advertisement.
- Photos of products should be treated by the same token. If you were actually the person who made the photos, then it would be nice of you to identify yourself properly (especially if there are many high-quality images, which can be confused as made by a professional and being suspect as someone else's intellectual property). If the source of those photos is the manufacturer's website, then I think these pix could be nominated for speedy deletion.
On the other hand, if these images don't have any substantial licensing and copyright issues, then all those images could be moved to WikiMedia Commons for other-language Wikipedias to use.
- -Mardus 00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I just discovered that most product images were copied from Archos' website and therefore don't qualify for WP:Commons. A few hi-res versions also exist and should be removed IMO; only low-res versions of these images could be kept.
- I found a Dutch WP article on Archos actually has a properly-licensed image of its product, so that could be used here instead of all those that are currently in here. I thought of tagging Archos-sourced images with a message that would ask users to upload thier own images that have more permissive licenses.
- -Mardus 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Added __Fairusereplace__ tags to most images that had a fair use rationale in their tags. This means that most images tagged like that must be replaced by actual user-photographed images and licensed such that they could be freely used here on Wikipedia. I hope that eventually some nice user obtains one of these products, makes photos of them and uploads here, with licensing that is permissive or considerably more compatible with Wikipedia than images with the fair use rationale.
- Additionally, a handful or so of all images don't have their licensing sorted out and are hi-res, when they are supposed to be low-res!
- -Mardus 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure those tags are absolutely necessary? They push the images below the bottom threshold and ruin the overall look of the article. It is not the policy of Wikipedia to inform every reader to find a free image for every fair use image. --Kamasutra 20:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- What does below the bottom threshold mean to you? Please explain.
- Those tags were created for a reason, because Wikipedia's one of four main policies is not to infringe on copyrights
- Also, when editing, you see this text at the bottom of the page:
- "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include the vast majority of web pages or images."
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of free content and not a wealthy corporation that could endlessly defend itself in court from copyright liability just because its users might think that it may use some images under a Fair Use license — as these images were copied from the Archos website and are therefore not free content. The problem is that most countries don't have the Fair Use provision in their copyright laws and many countries' copyright laws are even stricter than those of the U.S.
- -Mardus 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for not explaining. I just assumed it would be obvious by looking where the bottom of the body was in relation to the images, but maybe it appears differently when under other resolutions or rendered through different engines. Basically, the images continue far below the text. I know why the tags were created, but that is not what I was asking. Wikipedia recognizes fair use and a great deal of images it hosts are tagged with respect to the doctrine. I know the rationale under which the images are hosted, and if they were not allowed they would/should be deleted. Tags concerning the legality/licensing of images should be addressed on their respective pages. I have browsed the site for about two years now and this is the first time I've come across so many images with such captions; I wouldn't be so concerned if it didn't degrade the look of the article. Perhaps a single, all-encompassing caption would be sufficient, or a message only visible to editors. And regarding other countries' copyright laws, see Wikipedia's jurisdiction disclaimer. --Kamasutra 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could easily add a photo of the jukebox multimedia 20 (taken on it's own camera) but this would be lower quality than the one there now: should I still put one up? Jon m 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please do, the best place would be to upload it to Wikipedia Commons (so that other language Wikipedias could also use it), provide a proper license and link it here with this code:
[[:Image:imagename.extension]]/the colon before
Imagemakes a link to an image and hence will not display the actual image here. This would give an option for others to review the image. -Mardus 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
GPL violation/code release
Also recently, due to a violation of the gnu/linux license (the GPL), the source code for some of the firmware in their 04-series players has been released. This is certainly important enough to warrant a note on the page (Archos' website link: GPL software download page 18.104.22.168 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the feature always gets changed, its a USB flash drive not just Flash Memory which can be a number of other things, and its release was only a year or two after the first flashdrive released TMV943 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We will need to update this page, along with others, as the new Archos 5 and Archos 7 are about to be released, along with the Archos 5G later in December. This is extremely significant.. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Update "upcoming Products" Section
Archos 101: 800 Mhz or 1Ghz processor
It needs clarification whether the Archos 101 has 800 Mhz (as current article states) or a 1Ghz processor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbMTYoAgYPw&feature=player_embedded 2m41s)? --Grzegon (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Entry seems to be a list of products
- perhaps we should have a page for discontinued products? they seem to swamp the page. I can do so if there are no objections IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As of later Android 2 versions, the compatibility definition document (PDF) describes cellular and GPS functionality as optional. Has Archos ever given a reason as to why its Generation 8 products fail to "comply with Google's compatibility requirements" as Android Market#Market application restrictions states? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Very good reasons are given at Android (operating system)#Licensing and Android (operating system)#Leverage_over_manufacturers. This effectively means that Archos might be relying on AOSP. -Mardus (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)